F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – solidarity contribution/ contributo di solidarietà – (2016-2017) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 19 June 2017

Decision of the

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)

passed on 19 June 2017,

by Eirik Monsen (Norway),

Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC,

on the claim presented by the club,

Club A, Country B

as Claimant

against the club,

Club C, Country D

as Respondent

regarding training compensation in connection with

the Player E

I. Facts of the case

1. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country B, the player, Player E (hereinafter: the player), born on 1 October 1993, was registered as a professional with the following clubs:

- Club F as of 30 January 2012 until 12 July 2013 on a permanent basis;

- Club G as of 13 July 2013 until 28 August 2014 on a permanent basis;

- Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) as of 29 August 2014 until 30 June 2015 on loan from Club G;

- Club G as of 1 July 2015 until 9 August 2015.

2. Furthermore, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered as a professional, on loan, with the following clubs:

- the club of Country H, Club L as of 10 August 2015 until 17 January 2016;

- the club of Country M, Club N as of 26 January 2016 until 19 July 2016.

3. According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country D, on 20 July 2016 the player was transferred from Club G to the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) on a definitive basis.

4. The sporting season in Country B runs from 1 July until 30 June of the following year.

5. According to the information contained in the TMS, the Respondent belonged to the category I (Continental Confederation indicative amount of USD 50,000 per year) at the moment the player was registered with it.

6. In this framework, on 12 December 2016, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of training compensation on the ground of the transfer of the player as a professional from Club G to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount of USD 41,917 plus 5% interest as from 20 August 2016.

7. The Respondent replied that the Claimant was not entitled to receive training compensation as the latter was not the last club with which the player was effectively registered before his definitive transfer to the Respondent. In particular, the Respondent stressed that, after the Claimant, the player had been registered with Club L and Club N.

8. Moreover, the Respondent affirmed that, if training compensation was due, it was payable “for training incurred up to the age of 21, and not until the football season that the player completed 21 years of age”. Consequently, the Respondent argued that, in such scenario, training compensation was due for the period from 29 August 2014 to 30 September 2014, i.e. “the period that the player completed 21 years old”.

9. In this context, the Respondent affirmed that no training compensation was due as the player completed his training period before the age of 21. In support of this argument, the Respondent recalled the player’s international experience and stressed that the player:

- was transferred to Club F “when he was 17 years old”;

- played 770 minutes with the first team of Club G during season 2013/2014;

- was chosen as second best player at the Tournament P of 2013;

- was the top scorer in the Tournament Q.

II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 12 December 2016. Consequently, the 2016 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 3 of Annexe 6 in conjunction with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 and art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), he is competent to deal with the dispute at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.

3. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), and considering that the player was registered with the Respondent on a definitive basis on 20 July 2016, the 2016 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Single Judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and documentation submitted by the parties. However, he emphasized that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. In this respect, the Single Judge took note of the fact that the player, born on 1 October 1993, was registered as a professional, on loan, with the following clubs:

- the Claimant, as of 29 August 2014 until 30 June 2015;

- Club L as of 10 August 2015 until 17 January 2016;

- Club N as of 26 January 2016 until 19 July 2016.

6. Equally, the Single Judge took note that the player was transferred as a professional from Club G to the Respondent, on a permanent basis, on 20 July 2016.

7. Furthermore, the Single Judge duly noted that the Claimant requested the payment of the training compensation from the Respondent on the ground of the definitive transfer of the player as a professional to the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. In particular, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 41,917 plus 5% interest as from 20 August 2016.

8. The Single Judge also duly noted that the Respondent replied that the Claimant was not the last club which the player was effectively registered with before his definitive transfer to the Respondent, as the player was eventually registered with Club L and Club N. Consequently, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant was not entitled to training compensation as it was not the player’s former club.

9. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent argued that the claim should be rejected, since the player had allegedly terminated his training period before the age of 21, prior to his transfer to the Respondent.

10. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge stated first that, as established in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 when the player concerned is registered for the first time as a professional, or when a professional is transferred between two clubs of two different Associations, before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.

11. Furthermore, the Single Judge wished to recall that, according to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis of a written agreement between the professional and the clubs concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said provision stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism.

12. Notwithstanding the above, the Single Judge stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence of art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs which register a player on a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation, provided that the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This approach is also in line with the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have in fact contributed to the training and education of a player as from the age of 12 are, in principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by them.

13. In other words, the Single Judge emphasised that the nature of the player’s registration with a club claiming training compensation, i.e. on a definitive or on a temporary basis, is in fact irrelevant with respect to the question as to whether such club would be entitled to receive training compensation for the period of time that the player was effectively trained by that club.

14. Along those lines, the Single Judge deemed it essential to emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which players were loaned to other clubs and thus are not being definitively transferred to a new club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan as well as the return of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin do not constitute a subsequent transfer in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The Single Judge was eager to point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision (art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially depriving the loan of its essential flexibility and function of providing young players the opportunity to gain practical experience in another club in order to develop in a positive way, personally and, eventually, also for the benefit of the player’s new club.

15. Following the above, the Single Judge pointed out that the obligation to pay training compensation, thus, arises in case a player is definitively transferred from one club to another club belonging to a different association, but not when he is temporarily transferred to another club while still being contractually bound to his club of origin (yet, with the effects of the relevant contract being temporarily suspended), such as a loan. Hence, the relevant entitlement can only be claimed towards a new club that acquires the services of a player on a definitive and permanent basis subject to the fulfilment of the prerequisites established in art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The aforementioned approach is in line with the longstanding and well-established jurisprudence of this Chamber, which has been confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport on numerous occasions.

16. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge rejected the argument of the Respondent according to which, as the Claimant was not the last club which the player was effectively registered with before his definitive transfer to the Respondent, the Claimant was not entitled to the training compensation. In this respect, the Single Judge emphasised that, according to the player passport issued by the Football Federation of Country B, and to the information contained in the TMS, the player, before his permanent transfer to the Respondent, was registered with Club G after he returned from the loan to the Club N.

17. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge concluded that it can be established that the player was registered as a professional on a definitive basis with the Respondent before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday and, thus, the Claimant would be, in principle, entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent.

18. In continuation, as to the Respondent’s argument according to which the player had completed his training period before the age of 21, i.e. before being registered with the Claimant, the Single Judge recalled that art. 1 par. 1 sent. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations stipulates that training compensation shall be payable, as a general rule, up to the age of 23 for training incurred up to the age of 21, unless it is evident that a player has already terminated his training period before the age of 21. In this respect, the Single Judge emphasised that cases involving a possible early completion of a player’s training period have to be analysed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all the specific circumstances and all the evidence produced. Thus, several factors and indications have to be considered in order to establish whether a particular player’s training has indeed been completed before the age of 21, as the Respondent stated. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge stressed that both the DRC and the CAS have adopted a strict approach in establishing the early completion of the player’s training before the age of 21, so as to not jeopardize the right of training clubs to, in principle, receive training compensation.

19. In this regard, the Single Judge noted, once more, all the specific circumstances of the present matter as well as all the evidence produced by the parties. In particular, it highlighted that, during the period of registration with Club G, the player was not fielded on a regular basis, with a total of 770 minutes during the season of his 20th birthday.

20. Secondly, the Chamber acknowledged that the player had indeed played some matches with the U-20 team of the national team of Country M and was registered with the Club F when he was 18th years old. However, the Single Judge outlined that albeit these circumstances may be an indication of the player’s talent, skills and level of training, such facts are in themselves not conclusive to establish the player had completed his training before his 21st birthday.

21. In light of the above, and in consideration of the evolution of the player’s career, the Single Judge decided that, taking into account all the above-mentioned elements and circumstances, it could not be established that it was evident that the player had indeed completed his training period before his 21st birthday. Consistently with all the above, the Single concluded that training compensation is due to the Claimant.

22. Turning his attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Single Judge referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, as a general rule, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club as if it had trained the player itself and thus it is calculated based on the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number of years of training with the former club.

23. In this respect, the Single Judge took due note that the Respondent belonged to category I at the moment the player was registered it (indicative amount within Continental Confederation of USD 50,000 per year).

24. As a result, in view of the above and of art. 3 par. 1 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the period of training that the player spent with each club, the Single Judge concluded that the effective period of time to be considered at the matter at stake corresponds to ten months of season 2014/2015 (season of the player’s 21st birthday).

25. Consequently, and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of USD 41,666.

26. Moreover, taking into consideration the claim of the Claimant as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Single Judge decided that, in conformity with its longstanding practice, the Respondent has to pay interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as from the 31st day after the registration of the player with the Respondent on a definitive basis, i.e. as of 20 August 2016, as requested by the Claimant.

27. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. It is further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.

28. In respect of the above, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceeding is USD 41,917, related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceeding corresponds to CHF 5,000 (cf. table in Annex A).

29. As a result, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter and that the claim of the Claimant is almost entirely accepted, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent in its entirety.

30. The Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant.

III. Decision of the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC

1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 41,666, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 August 2016 until the date of effective payment.

3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision

4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the DRC of every payment received.

6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no. XXX:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).

The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:

Court of Arbitration for Sport

Avenue de Beaumont 2

1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

Fax: +41 21 613 50 01

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Single Judge of the

sub-committee of the DRC:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl.: CAS Directives